PITCH POSES PROBLEMS Jig-saw for N.Z. cricket selectors

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33442, 25 January 1974, Page 34

PITCH POSES PROBLEMS Jig-saw for N.Z. cricket selectors

-From D I. CAMERON) ADELAIDE. The New Zealand cricket tour selectors, who were battling through the first half of the Australian tour to find 11 fully fit players, now have an even tougher problem—to find from the 15 fit and keen players the best balanced 11 for the critical third test against Australia starting tomorrow.

From the time of the second test the New Zealanders have made startling progress. and the Australians’ air of super confidence about the test series has now become one of cautious concern, especially about their ability to bowl (he New Zealanders out.

But there must also be some concern among the New Zealanders about their test side, and especially about the type of howling attack needed for this third test. If the Adelaide pitch plays i to its usual form it will be! quite unlike the previous tes r 1 pitches in Melbourne and; Sydney It should not be as; hard and brittle as the Melbourne pitch, nor as fast and! favourable to seam bowling as the Sydney one. There is every sign that the Adelaide pitch will be easy for batting at least for the first two days and then, given dry weather, will give the spinners some help over the last half of the match. The South Australians. A. A. Mallett, the test offspinner. and T. J. Jenner, the former Australian legspinner, have regularly taken bags of wickets at Adelaide | this season, and last week! M. Francke, the Queensland' leg-spinner, took six wickets for 62 in the South Austra-1 lian second innings. So the New Zealanders seem convinced—perhaps to' the point of developing at> l anxiety neurosis about it. —' ’hat the test pitch will cut; away their won superiority in medium-fast bowling and) pander too much to the Aus-1 tralian spin bowling strength; of Mallett and K. J. O'Keeffe. I Thus they face two prob-'

iems — ot picking a batting [team that can make as much [progress against quality spin [bowling as it has done re'cently against medium-fast bowling, and of assembling a bowling attack geared to make as much use as possible of a spinners’ pitch. Taking the second problem first the New Zealanders now find themselves with the I

decision of playing either D R. O'Sullivan or G. D. Alabaster, and perhaps both.

For most of this tour Alabaster has been regarded as the junior spinner, as O’Sullivan's past success in Australia and in county cricket — and his ability to spin the ball away from the righthander — made him the obvious first choice.

That proposition is not as strong as it used to be. Since the first test, when he took none for 80, O’Sullivan has only bowled against Tasmania, taking four for 77 from 25 overs. This is hardly the kind of extensive preparation which a bowler of O’Sullivan’s type needs. Alabaster has bowled in only three first-class games, getting two wickets against New South Wales, five against Tasmania, and two on the heartless pitch at Perth.

On figures Alabaster would look the safer bet, with nine tour wickets for 292 runs from 80.4 overs, while O’Sullivan has taken the same number of wickets for 437 runs from 126 overs. Alabaster’s average is 32.4 to O’Sullivan’s 48.7. Statistics are not the most) accurate guide, and there is: a strong feeling that the Australians will, on a turning pitch, make harder work of facing O’Sullivan than Alabaster. Perhaps the New Zealand selectors will take the bold step and pick both. But it is more likely they will retain their past pattern and play only O’Sullivan, with M. J. Shrimpton as the supporting spinner. Then there is the selection of the medium-fast attack. The Hadlee brothers are assured of places, and as D. R. Hadlee prefers to use a i slightly worn ball rather thanj • the shiny new one. New Zea- i land may retain a three-man medium-fast attack. B. Andrews was the third seamer in the first two tests, but it is one ofthe curiosities of this tour that he has not bowled in a first-class match i since the second test. Now I he is being challenged by B.| ;L. Cairns who took seven wickets in the recent matches against Tasmania and Western Australia. Andrews is the more experienced bowler, and bis epic over at Sydney, when he dismissed both A. P. Sheahan and G. S. Chappell, still lingers in the mind. Andrews often looks the better bowler than Cainis with his odd action, but Cairns is the man who has been getting the wickets.

Batting If the selectors opt. for Alabaster at the expense of a quicker bowler the problem is solved. But if it comes down to a choice between Andrews and Cairns the selectors face a knotty problem. The return of G. M. Turner makes the batting selection just as awkward. J. M. Parker, B. F. Hastings, and B. E. Congdon are also obvious ichoices, leaving Shrimpton, J. M, Morrison, and J. V. IConey disputing the other itwo places. ' Shrimpton has not played in a first-class match since the first two tests (in which Ihe scored 66 runs), and there has been the hint that he has lost the sure touch he showed earlier in the tour. Yet he scored a century against South Australia on lon the third test, ground, and this leg-spinning cannot be disregarded. Morrison, the second test 1 century-maker, lost form [against Tasmania, regained it lat Perth, and now looks a I most dependable batsman. Coney is a good-looking batsman but had only moderate success at Launceston and Perth. Against that he looks the best of New Zealand’s catchers behind the wicket. So the New Zealand selectors have an. awkward jig|saw to fit together when they [pick the team this afternoon.

The eleven they select may well be Turner. Parker, Hastings, Morrison, Congdon. Shrimpton. K. J. Wadsworth. D. R. Hadlee. R. J. Hadlee. Andrews, and O’Sullivan. If they are brave they will replace Andrews with Alabaster.